701–710 of 741 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When resources and opportunities get concentrated at the top of the pyramid In a free market system, wealth is created, not concentrated.
Why do you see those two processes as orthagonal?
B creating something has nothing to do with A.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It does both! No, it does not concentrate wealth. Wealth is not a fixed pie. In a free market, you get wealthy by creating wealth, not concentrating it. As for monopolies, competition is what prevents them.
Unregulated capitalism inevitably trends towards a mafia state with an oligarchic structure and concentrated monopolistic power. It’s just an empirical fact at this point. The engine that really drives innovation and wealth creation is regulated capitalism that preserves competitive markets by restraining anticompetitive behavior. If you’re ideologically attached to capitalism I have good news for you. That’s the app…
If what you mean by "mafia" is "your signature on the contract or or brains" that is not free market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s everywhere. Bill Simmons. Makes me insane. How many individual podcast hosts actually control those advertising slots?
You need to select better content then. None of the creators I follow/watch advertise gambling and I could care less if they did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, really, that's all countries. Some dude was willing to resort to more depraved measures than his rivals, and made enough people do what he wanted in order to become the leader.
Very ahistorical view
One.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially when the "prediction" part isn't even part of the product, it is an accidental byproduct. No one pays for access to the predictions. And they aren't predictions, they are more like "outcome-shaping" markets, since the more liquidity that gets dumped on a particular outcome, the more motivation there is to tamper with the real-world outcome, and at a certain point it will just always happen if it is billion…
> the more liquidity that gets dumped on a particular outcome, the more motivation there is to tamper with the real-world outcome This only works if there are enough people betting on the other side. It's not some kind of magical money multiplication machine. As more stuff like the one-day Iran bet or the 64:56 minute press conference happen, people will avoid taking bets on highly specific outcomes. On more reasonab…
Right, it's not even consistent, the manipulation can go either way, at random, but what is sure is the higher the liquidity, the higher the motivation becomes to tamper
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially when the "prediction" part isn't even part of the product, it is an accidental byproduct. No one pays for access to the predictions. And they aren't predictions, they are more like "outcome-shaping" markets, since the more liquidity that gets dumped on a particular outcome, the more motivation there is to tamper with the real-world outcome, and at a certain point it will just always happen if it is billion…
Those predictions are just market data, market data is often very expensive (my data usage at work is probably about $100k a year and i'm not even a trader), I imagine polymarket will be too when they are more established.
edit: apparently they do, that's even more wild lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially when the "prediction" part isn't even part of the product, it is an accidental byproduct. No one pays for access to the predictions. And they aren't predictions, they are more like "outcome-shaping" markets, since the more liquidity that gets dumped on a particular outcome, the more motivation there is to tamper with the real-world outcome, and at a certain point it will just always happen if it is billion…
Give one example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they would be wrong. Have them have a prediction market on whether their house will be arsoned tomorrow or they will be hit by a car and instantly they will recognize the danger of the incentives and the bs of "information hedging based on price discovery". Cause way worse events allow betting and profiting. Give me a break, we're at the complete decadence of society and its intellect. Nobody can recognize right…
I suggest that you think rationally about what you just said. Why wound anyone open a bet on "rando's house will be set on fire"? Why would they bet on "yes"? You can't present a generic case such as that without going into details about motivations and actual incentives. Those way worse events also have a lot of extra political motivations behind it. If someone starts a war with the sole intention of winning a bet,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they would be wrong. Have them have a prediction market on whether their house will be arsoned tomorrow or they will be hit by a car and instantly they will recognize the danger of the incentives and the bs of "information hedging based on price discovery". Cause way worse events allow betting and profiting. Give me a break, we're at the complete decadence of society and its intellect. Nobody can recognize right…
I suggest that you think rationally about what you just said. Why wound anyone open a bet on "rando's house will be set on fire"? Why would they bet on "yes"? You can't present a generic case such as that without going into details about motivations and actual incentives. Those way worse events also have a lot of extra political motivations behind it. If someone starts a war with the sole intention of winning a bet,…
That doesn't read like a good-faith response. Parent-poster brought up an archetypal scenario asserting that certain people are ignoring malice/harms because they are not personally affected, exhibiting a latent logical contradiction or double-standard.
Instead of addressing the actual point (the existence/seriousness of the harm category) you've begun nitpicking that there aren't enough irrelevant operational details about the hypothetical arsonist and hypothetical attack.
_______
"They are correct that rain is natural and normal, this isn't a big deal."
"If it was your house being flooded by neighbors' failure to control runoff flooding created by impermeable construction, you wouldn't say that, you would recognize the harm!"
"Pish tosh! I suggest you think rationally about the fact that my house is on a hill! For what possible reason would I put myself in such a situation?"